Regiment size

[David Ireland]

How many men were in the average regiment, brigade, division, and corps?

Was there an average?

 

[JOHN42768]

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/civil-war-army-organization

 

[Pat Answer]

Officially a regiment would be ~1,000 on paper. Of course, sickness, casualties, and desertion, etc., would reduce this over time and strengths could vary widely. Between 400 and 500 for an overall average, at least for Union formations:

"The average regimental strength 'present for duty,' in the Union army, was about 560 at Shiloh, and 650 at Fair Oaks, in the spring of 1862; 530 at Chancellorsville in May, 375 at Gettysburg in July, and 440 at Chickamauga in September, 1863; 440 at the Wilderness, and 305 in Sherman's army in May, 1864." Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America, Thomas Livermore, Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1901, p. 68

 

[Kurt G]

Late in the war regiments , especially Confederate , could be very low , sometimes under 200 .I remember reading once that some Union soldiers were surprised at the large number of Confederate flags present towards Appomattox because there were so few men in each regiment .

 

[James N.]

How many men were in the average regiment, brigade, division, and corps?

Was there an average?

Yes, but as you can see from the above posts it varied widely according to elements of time, space, and location. For the entire war I would hesitate to even give a figure because it would create too many misconceptions.

 

[gunny]

The Sixteenth Tennessee Infantry mustered nearly 1,000 men in July 1861. By September, they only mustered 700. They then had a large number of men transfer to the cavalry in April 1862 and lost about a hundred more men. They mustered about 600 at Tupelo in May 1862. In October of that year they went into the Battle of Perryville with about 378 men after losing many to the Conscript Act and gaining a handful during the march to Kentucky. They lost over half their number in that battle, but were gifted another 180 recruits at Tullahoma in November 1862. They went into the fight at Murfreesboro with just over 400 men and lost over half that number. They mustered only 242 effective troops in September 1863 and lost a third of them at Chickamauga. In December 1863, they mustered only 212 and with only 157 effective troops. By June 28, 1864 there were only 134 effective. July 22, 1864 they had about 114 men effective. This number was decreased to less than 85 after that day's battle. Company D of the regiment only had one officer and five enlisted men effective in September 1864. The regiment consolidated with two other Tennessee regiments that same month. Alone, the regiment mustered less than 150 aggregate present and about 100 effective at Franklin in November 1864.

 

[jackt62]

The practice, at least in the federal armies, was to raise new regiments rather than replace with new recruits, existing regiments that became diminished. Raising new regiments at the expense of existing ones gave state governors more patronage for appointing politically connected officers to those new regiments.

 

[Kurt G]

The 24th Michigan was pulled from duty in February of 1865 and transferred to Camp Butler , Illinois in order to recruit the regiment back to strength . Because of the location near Springfield , the regiment wound up providing the guard for Lincoln's body. Regiments were also supplemented by draftees , though they were often of poor quality .

 

[AUG]

The practice, at least in the federal armies, was to raise new regiments rather than replace with new recruits, existing regiments that became diminished. Raising new regiments at the expense of existing ones gave state governors more patronage for appointing politically connected officers to those new regiments.

Like the Confederates, I believe the North did send recruiting officers back home to refill the ranks of existing regiments as well, though to varying success.

And, I know this is kind of aside from your point, but with the veteran volunteer system, experienced Federal regiments actually did have the option to reenlist after their two- or three-year term of service ended. If a regiment had enough men reenlist it remained in service rather than disband and was designated a "veteran volunteer regiment." But if it didn't meet the quota then the men who did reenlist or who had not served out their term yet were usually consolidated with another regiment, or their regiment remained in service as a battalion. Many Federal regiments did "veteranize" and serve on throughout the war.

Edit to add: This was after the War Department issued General Orders No. 191 on June 25, 1863.

 

[Tom Elmore]

The average Confederate regiment of the Army of Northern Virginia just prior to Gettysburg:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/th...y-regiment-at-gettysburg.127959/#post-1405394

 

[Bruce Vail]

North Carolina Confederate regiments were nominally 1,000 men but typically recruited 1,100 to 1,200 for the muster-in on the assumption that illness and disability would immediately reduce the effective strength.

Effective strength dribbled away throughout the war, despite continual new recruiting efforts. For my family ancestor's 3rd NC Infantry, there were only about 60 men left by the time of the surrender at Appamatox.

 

[AUG]

Checked Law's Alabama Brigade in the War Between the Union and the Confederacy by J. Gary Laine and Morris M. Penny since it has numbers and losses listed in the appendix.

At Gettysburg Law's Brigade - 4th, 15th, 44th, 47th, and 48th Alabama regiments - had 1,714 officers and men present, losing 526 (each regiment averaging 343 present).

At Chickamauga: 1,462 present, losing 436 (average of 292 present per regiment).

The Wilderness: 1,198 present, losing 268 (average of 240 present per regiment).

A total of 6,260 officers and men had served in the brigade (average of 1,252 per regiment). 973 surrendered at Appomattox (195 per regiment).


In comparison, the Texas Brigade - consisting of the 1st, 4th and 5th Texas and 3rd Arkansas regiments - had 1,839 present and 1,734 engaged at Gettysburg, losing about 600 men (average of 460 men present per regiment).

At Chickamauga it had 1,300 men present, losing 570 (average of 325 present per regiment).

At the Wilderness it numbered only some 800 effectives with 1,300 men on the rolls and lost about half of those engaged in the battle.

And throughout the rest of 1864 and into '65 the brigade averaged around 500-600 men present.

It is estimated that about 5,300 men had served in the three Texas regiments and one Arkansas regiment that comprised Hood's Texas Brigade (average of 1,325 per regiment). Of this number only 617 were present at Appomattox (155 per regiment).

 

[Pat Answer]

...In October of that year they went into the Battle of Perryville with about 378 men after losing many to the Conscript Act and gaining a handful during the march to Kentucky. ...

It seems counter-intuitive to me that conscription would cause a unit to lose strength (though given the track record of conscription on both sides - other than those prompted to volunteer to avoid the stigma - I'm sure there is a reason!). Were men re-assigned to other units or something like that?

 

[Schwallanscher]

It seems counter-intuitive to me that conscription would cause a unit to lose strength (though given the track record of conscription on both sides - other than those prompted to volunteer to avoid the stigma - I'm sure there is a reason!). Were men re-assigned to other units or something like that?

i don't understand it either as you simply cannot conscript somebody who is already in the army. if it's meant that those units were diluted to provide nco.s for newly conscript regiments it's strangely worded; but then that's the only thing that makes any sense.

 

[gunny]

It seems counter-intuitive to me that conscription would cause a unit to lose strength (though given the track record of conscription on both sides - other than those prompted to volunteer to avoid the stigma - I'm sure there is a reason!). Were men re-assigned to other units or something like that?

I'm in the midst of a mind boggling roster that goes in depth of the entire regiment- both alphabetically and then by company. It has the age of every man in 1863 whether dead or alive and also height of each man when known.

This roster reveals that many men transferred to other units in early April 1862 - before the May 1862 Conscription Act was passed. Then when it was passed it allowed any man who had served that was under the age of 18 when enlisted or over the age 35 when the act was passed to be discharged. I haven't counted the number yet, but as of the letter "M" well over one hundred and fifty men were discharged by July 16, 1862. Since the act causes more red tape, it took months before the Conscption part of the act was in motion. Most men were not mustered into service until late September 1862 when the army was already in Kentucky. These men joined the regiment in November of that year.

So while the basis of the act was to retain men and add even more, the initial result was a weakening of the forces only to be supplemented back to early 1862 strengths late in 1862. The numbers would have increased unit strengths, but many units were so diminished by the battle at Perryville that is barely brought them back to their pre-Perryville strengths.

 

[Schwallanscher]

I'm in the midst of a mind boggling roster that goes in depth of the entire regiment- both alphabetically and then by company. It has the age of every man in 1863 whether dead or alive and also height of each man when known.

This roster reveals that many men transferred to other units in early April 1862 - before the May 1862 Conscription Act was passed. Then when it was passed it allowed any man who had served that was under the age of 18 when enlisted or over the age 35 when the act was passed to be discharged. I haven't counted the number yet, but as of the letter "M" well over one hundred and fifty men were discharged by July 16, 1862. Since the act causes more red tape, it took months before the Conscption part of the act was in motion. Most men were not mustered into service until late September 1862 when the army was already in Kentucky. These men joined the regiment in November of that year.

So while the basis of the act was to retain men and add even more, the initial result was a weakening of the forces only to be supplemented back to early 1862 strengths late in 1862. The numbers would have increased unit strengths, but many units were so diminished by the battle at Perryville that is barely brought them back to their pre-Perryville strengths.

okay, makes sense now - i still think your original wording is strange

 

[Pat Answer]

Thanks. The clarification makes perfect sense. And 'red tape' belongs up there with death and taxes for life's certainties, doesn't it?

 

[James N.]

The practice, at least in the federal armies, was to raise new regiments rather than replace with new recruits, existing regiments that became diminished. Raising new regiments at the expense of existing ones gave state governors more patronage for appointing politically connected officers to those new regiments.

One notable example of this idiotic practice was the famous 69th New York of the Irish Brigade which I believe by the time of Gettysburg was about the size of a company, somewhere around a hundred men. Other regiments in the brigade were larger but I think only the relatively new 116th Pennsylvania was anywhere near adequate size, and even it had been greatly diminished, especially at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville.